Nursing CariesNCT06052007
In-Situ Simulation Different Debriefing Methods
A study testing LC-Based Debriefing and 3D Model-Based Debriefing in people with Nursing Caries and Satisfaction, run by Sakarya University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
The goal of this pre-test-post-test randomized controlled experimental study is to examined the effects of the learning conversation (LC)-based, 3D model-based, and standard debriefing methods on critical thinking, debriefing experience, and satisfaction after in-situ simulation among intensive care unit (ICU) nurses. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 23 to 49 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Nursing Caries, Satisfaction, Simulation of Physical Illness
- What is being tested?
- LC-Based Debriefing and 3D Model-Based Debriefing
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 119 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 10 Jan 2023to 10 Apr 2023
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 23 to 49 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Volunterring
- Beclohers degree graduated
- 22- 55 years
- min 1 year to work as a nurse
- open to communication
Who cannot join
- individuals outside the inclusion criteria
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Sakarya Training and Research Hospital
Sakarya, 54050
About this study
Official title: In-Situ Simulation Study Among Nurses Using Different Debriefing Methods
The goal of this pre-test-post-test randomized controlled experimental study is to examined the effects of the learning conversation (LC)-based, 3D model-based, and standard debriefing methods on critical thinking, debriefing experience, and satisfaction after in-situ simulation among intensive care unit (ICU) nurses.
A total of 186 ICU nurses working in a training and research hospital participated in the study. Researchers will compare learning conversation (LC)-based, 3D model-based, and standard debriefing methods on critical thinking, debriefing experience, and satisfaction.
- Conditions
- Nursing Caries, Satisfaction, Simulation of Physical Illness
- Being tested
- LC-Based Debriefing, 3D Model-Based Debriefing
- Keywords
- in-situ simulation, critical thinking, debriefing, nurse, intensive care
- Medical subject headings
- Personal Satisfaction
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
LC-Based DebriefingBehavioural
LC-based debriefing encourages reflection by allowing learners to identify and explore topics of particular interest. The model is defined as a structured post-event LC, which is useful for improving competence, professional development, and clinical judgment among intensive care unit and trauma nurses. The model is useful not only for one recipient by allowing reflection on positive and negative experiences but also for the whole group by allowing them to make connections to their own practice that day or to previous experiences, supporting teamwork. It also helps them understand what good practice is by doing their own self-assessment with peers' benchmarking.
3D Model-Based DebriefingBehavioural
The model has three parts: defusing, discovering, and deepening. The experiential learning theory on which this model is based facilitates learning goals. This model allows its participants to create new mental models for future practice, develop critical thinking skills, and identify knowledge gaps. In the model, a debriefing session starts with preliminary information and ends with a summary of what has been learned. Participants' gaps in understanding and learning are identified, and how they can apply their learnings to practice is discussed.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| LC-Based Debriefing | Experimental | LC-based debriefing session in one intervention group. Receives: Behavioral: LC-Based Debriefing |
| 3D Model-Based Debriefing | Experimental | One facilitator conducted a 3D model-based debriefing session in the other intervention group. Receives: Behavioral: 3D Model-Based Debriefing |
| Standard Debriefing | No intervention | One facilitator conducted a non-model-based unstructured debriefing session in the control group |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Examined criticical thinking knownledge test score of intervention and control groups
The criticical thinking knownledge test was also created by the researchers and comprised 10 questions about learning objectives and critical thinking, particularly regarding decision-making while performing elimination, nutritional, and respiratory activities of ICU patients.
Measured: 2 months
Determinating satisfaction scores of intervention and control groups
A visual analog scale (0 = not at all satisfied, 10 = very satisfied), the participants were asked to rate their satisfaction.
Measured: 2 months
Determinating debriefing experince score of intervention and control groups
The Debriefing Experience Scale consists of 20 items and is a 5-point Likert-type scale. It consists of two parts-experience with debriefing and importance of items-and four subscales-analyzing thoughts and feelings, learning and making connections, facilitator skill in conducting the debriefing, and appropriate facilitator guidance. A high score on the scale indicates increased gains from the debriefing experience
Measured: 2 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted25 Sep 2023
- Study start10 Jan 2023
- Primary completion10 Mar 2023
- Study completion10 Apr 2023
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (9)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Nursing CariesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 119 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Sakarya University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, özlem doğu, Sakarya University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06052007
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Different Debriefing Methods
- Status last verified
- Sep 2023
- First submitted
- 18 Sep 2023
- Last updated
- 25 Sep 2023
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Data set can be shared
Publications
Abu-Sultaneh S, Whitfill T, Rowan CM, Friedman ML, Pearson KJ, Berrens ZJ, Lutfi R, Auerbach MA, Abulebda K. Improving Simulated Pediatric Airway Management in Community Emergency Departments Using a Collaborative Program With a Pediatric Academic Medical Center. Respir Care. 2019 Sep;64(9):1073-1081. doi: 10.4187/respcare.06750. Epub 2019 Apr 23.
PubMed 31015388Almomani E, Sullivan J, Hijjeh M, Attlallah K. The perceived relationship between reflective learning conversation and clinical reasoning skills amongst critical care and trauma nurses: A cross sectional parallel mixed method. Nurse Educ Today. 2021 Oct;105:105044. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105044. Epub 2021 Jul 2.
PubMed 34242908Baldwin LJ, Jones CM, Hulme J, Owen A. Use of the learning conversation improves instructor confidence in life support training: An open randomised controlled cross-over trial comparing teaching feedback mechanisms. Resuscitation. 2015 Nov;96:199-207. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.08.010. Epub 2015 Aug 24.
PubMed 26316279Dochez V, Beringue F, Legendre G, Jeanneteau P, Rolland D, Coutin AS, Collin R, Boulvais E, Malo L, Chupin AM, Cousin B, Flamant C, Winer N. Assessment of a multiprofessional training programme by in situ simulation in the maternity units of the Pays de Loire regional perinatal network. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021 Sep;50(7):102107. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102107. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
PubMed 33705991Kang K, Yu M. Comparison of student self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing in nursing simulation: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Jun;65:67-73. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.030. Epub 2018 Mar 2.
PubMed 29533836Lee J, Lee H, Kim S, Choi M, Ko IS, Bae J, Kim SH. Debriefing methods and learning outcomes in simulation nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2020 Apr;87:104345. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104345. Epub 2020 Jan 16.
PubMed 32135455Niu Y, Liu T, Li K, Sun M, Sun Y, Wang X, Yang X. Effectiveness of simulation debriefing methods in nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2021 Dec;107:105113. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105113. Epub 2021 Aug 27.
PubMed 34492539Reed SJ. Written debriefing: Evaluating the impact of the addition of a written component when debriefing simulations. Nurse Educ Pract. 2015 Nov;15(6):543-8. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2015.07.011. Epub 2015 Aug 5.
PubMed 26299701Villemure C, Georgescu LM, Tanoubi I, Dube JN, Chiocchio F, Houle J. Examining perceptions from in situ simulation-based training on interprofessional collaboration during crisis event management in post-anesthesia care. J Interprof Care. 2019 Mar-Apr;33(2):182-189. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2018.1538103. Epub 2018 Nov 5.
PubMed 30395755
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Sep 2023. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- In-Situ Simulation Study Among Nurses Using Different Debriefing Methods
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06052007
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Different Debriefing Methods
- Conditions
- Nursing Caries, Satisfaction, Simulation of Physical Illness
- Keywords
- in-situ simulation, critical thinking, debriefing, nurse, intensive care
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 119 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Sakarya UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 10 Jan 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 10 Mar 2023 (actual)
- Study completion
- 10 Apr 2023 (actual)
- First posted
- 25 Sep 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this pre-test-post-test randomized controlled experimental study is to examined the effects of the learning conversation (LC)-based, 3D model-based, and standard debriefing methods on critical thinking, debriefing experience, and satisfaction after in-situ simulation among intensive care unit (ICU) nurses.
A total of 186 ICU nurses working in a training and research hospital participated in the study. Researchers will compare learning conversation (LC)-based, 3D model-based, and standard debriefing methods on critical thinking, debriefing experience, and satisfaction.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| LC-Based Debriefing | Experimental | Behavioral: LC-Based DebriefingLC-based debriefing session in one intervention group. |
| 3D Model-Based Debriefing | Experimental | Behavioral: 3D Model-Based DebriefingOne facilitator conducted a 3D model-based debriefing session in the other intervention group. |
| Standard Debriefing | No intervention | –One facilitator conducted a non-model-based unstructured debriefing session in the control group |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 23 to 49 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Volunterring
- Beclohers degree graduated
- 22- 55 years
- min 1 year to work as a nurse
- open to communication
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- individuals outside the inclusion criteria
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| LC-Based DebriefingLC-based debriefing encourages reflection by allowing learners to identify and explore topics of particular interest. The model is defined as a structured post-event LC, which is useful for improving competence, professional development, and clinical judgment among intensive care unit and trauma nurses. The model is useful not only for one recipient by allowing reflection on positive and negative experiences but also for the whole group by allowing them to make connections to their own practice that day or to previous experiences, supporting teamwork. It also helps them understand what good practice is by doing their own self-assessment with peers' benchmarking. | Behavioural | LC-Based Debriefing |
| 3D Model-Based DebriefingThe model has three parts: defusing, discovering, and deepening. The experiential learning theory on which this model is based facilitates learning goals. This model allows its participants to create new mental models for future practice, develop critical thinking skills, and identify knowledge gaps. In the model, a debriefing session starts with preliminary information and ends with a summary of what has been learned. Participants' gaps in understanding and learning are identified, and how they can apply their learnings to practice is discussed. | Behavioural | 3D Model-Based Debriefing |
Primary outcome
Examined criticical thinking knownledge test score of intervention and control groups
Time frame: 2 months
The criticical thinking knownledge test was also created by the researchers and comprised 10 questions about learning objectives and critical thinking, particularly regarding decision-making while performing elimination, nutritional, and respiratory activities of ICU patients.
Determinating satisfaction scores of intervention and control groups
Time frame: 2 months
A visual analog scale (0 = not at all satisfied, 10 = very satisfied), the participants were asked to rate their satisfaction.
Determinating debriefing experince score of intervention and control groups
Time frame: 2 months
The Debriefing Experience Scale consists of 20 items and is a 5-point Likert-type scale. It consists of two parts-experience with debriefing and importance of items-and four subscales-analyzing thoughts and feelings, learning and making connections, facilitator skill in conducting the debriefing, and appropriate facilitator guidance. A high score on the scale indicates increased gains from the debriefing experience
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Sep 2023.
- Results publication: PubMed 31015388Abu-Sultaneh S, Whitfill T, Rowan CM, Friedman ML, Pearson KJ, Berrens ZJ, Lutfi R, Auerbach MA, Abulebda K. Improving Simulated Pediatric Airway Management in Community Emergency Departments Using a Collaborative Program With a Pediatric Academic Medical Center. Respir Care. 2019 Sep;64(9):1073-1081. doi: 10.4187/respcare.06750. Epub 2019 Apr 23.
- Results publication: PubMed 34242908Almomani E, Sullivan J, Hijjeh M, Attlallah K. The perceived relationship between reflective learning conversation and clinical reasoning skills amongst critical care and trauma nurses: A cross sectional parallel mixed method. Nurse Educ Today. 2021 Oct;105:105044. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105044. Epub 2021 Jul 2.
- Results publication: PubMed 26316279Baldwin LJ, Jones CM, Hulme J, Owen A. Use of the learning conversation improves instructor confidence in life support training: An open randomised controlled cross-over trial comparing teaching feedback mechanisms. Resuscitation. 2015 Nov;96:199-207. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2015.08.010. Epub 2015 Aug 24.
- Results publication: PubMed 33705991Dochez V, Beringue F, Legendre G, Jeanneteau P, Rolland D, Coutin AS, Collin R, Boulvais E, Malo L, Chupin AM, Cousin B, Flamant C, Winer N. Assessment of a multiprofessional training programme by in situ simulation in the maternity units of the Pays de Loire regional perinatal network. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021 Sep;50(7):102107. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2021.102107. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
- Results publication: PubMed 29533836Kang K, Yu M. Comparison of student self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing in nursing simulation: A quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ Today. 2018 Jun;65:67-73. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.02.030. Epub 2018 Mar 2.
- Results publication: PubMed 32135455Lee J, Lee H, Kim S, Choi M, Ko IS, Bae J, Kim SH. Debriefing methods and learning outcomes in simulation nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2020 Apr;87:104345. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104345. Epub 2020 Jan 16.
- Results publication: PubMed 34492539Niu Y, Liu T, Li K, Sun M, Sun Y, Wang X, Yang X. Effectiveness of simulation debriefing methods in nursing education: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2021 Dec;107:105113. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.105113. Epub 2021 Aug 27.
- Results publication: PubMed 26299701Reed SJ. Written debriefing: Evaluating the impact of the addition of a written component when debriefing simulations. Nurse Educ Pract. 2015 Nov;15(6):543-8. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2015.07.011. Epub 2015 Aug 5.
- Results publication: PubMed 30395755Villemure C, Georgescu LM, Tanoubi I, Dube JN, Chiocchio F, Houle J. Examining perceptions from in situ simulation-based training on interprofessional collaboration during crisis event management in post-anesthesia care. J Interprof Care. 2019 Mar-Apr;33(2):182-189. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2018.1538103. Epub 2018 Nov 5.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Data set can be shared
Related trials for Nursing Caries
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Oral Hygiene Assistance Training Program
Elderly, Periodontal Disease
Not yet recruiting
Virtual Escape Room Game About Medical Device in Nurses
Nursing Caries, Pressure Injuries
Recruiting
Extending Dental Care to Nursing Home Residents to Reduce Mouth Infections and Incidence of Pneumonia and Improve Diabetic Glucose Control
Periodontitis, Gingivitis
Not yet recruiting
Flipped Learning Model on Nursing Students' Thorax and Heart Examination
Nursing Students, Nursing Caries
Not yet recruiting
Flipped Learning Model on the Stoma Care
Stoma Colostomy, Nursing Caries
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing LC-Based Debriefing and 3D Model-Based Debriefing in people with Nursing Caries and Satisfaction, run by Sakarya University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Sep 2023. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Examined criticical thinking knownledge test score of intervention and control groups (time frame: 2 months). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06052007, which also lists 9 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 Sep 2023.